Once a country starts to move forward, spare capacity and unrealized potential tend to allow it to grow faster than developed nations. Furthermore, if we consider that China is a disproportionately big component of the group of unfree nations outperforming liberal democracies, the growth rate gap is not surprising.
In fact, liberal democracies can compete favorably with dictatorships even in the short term. So is Peru, whose economy is experiencing 7 percent annual growth. These are imperfect democracies, for sure, and in the case of Peru there has been little poverty reduction.
But the recent success indicates that elections, freedom of the press and freedom of association can coexist with high economic growth. Two things are certain, however. First, history indicates that the combination of political, civil and economic freedom is a better guarantee of ever-increasing prosperity than a capitalist dictatorship. June 13, By Alvaro Vargas Llosa.
Twitter Email. However under a dictatorship, the ruler has total power and hence, there are no more power quotas to fight for anymore. This is clearly an example of the usage of the ambiguous interpretation of Dictatorship. If a civil war has two side of an opposing government e. This produced the improvement of more than MM Chinese citizens that moved from poverty to the mid class.
This argument should not be interpreted to show that Dictatorship is more clever in economics than other form of government; the capabilities to attract Foreign Direct Investment, establish a Pro -Investment framework,etc. Dictatorship only succeed in implementing whatever policies they have in mind without opposition.
But it does not show that Dictatorship is the answer for economical problem in a country. We would also like to reject the notion of China being a dictatorship; even though Chairman Mao is the central figure of the Chinese Communist Party, he is not above the law.
One of the main prerequisites for democracy is periodical elections, and each election in a democracy is a time when the continuity of rule of law is put in jeopardy, especially when the former opposition party becomes the new governing party and vice-versa, because the ministries and government agencies have to switch their policies and because partisan hiring is commonplace.
When the results of the election are very close, there is a chance of anarchy whilst the votes are recounted. After the Mexican presidential election, popular unrest with the tight results led to mass protests, asking for a recount, and the president-elect had to deal with a strong faction in the parliament that refused to recognize him, and with the contender refused to admit defeat. In addition, the social control exercised by dictatorships allow them to prevent financial losses due to strikes, riots, and keep low criminality rates.
Thus providing a bargain for investors. The PAP subjugates politics in Singapore since its independence in Singapore has been tagged as a de facto one-party state and several foreign analysts and internal political parties have accused the PAP of taking harsh action against opposition parties to discourage and impede their success.
It is clear to better have a planned, smooth transitions in a certain period, than having an uncertain succession in the end of a dictator era. In a same objectivity not to put stigma on dictatorship and describing it as a totalitarian ruling party, it is also unfair to put bad democracy example as an evidence of the flaw of democracy itself. Yes, the example of the proposition is valid, but the example is just an example of fail implementation, but not a fail mechanism. The problem of the democracy system only appears when the implementation is bad, as been showed by the mexican election on But the uncertainty of succession, is surely bring the country into jeopardy, whether the dictator is good or bad.
The evidence of that is Yugoslavia. Singapore is popular as a democratic country who implement repressive action, which is claimed is done based on the consent of its citizen. The example given shows the evidence of the consent of citizen toward the repression, but do not necessarily mean that Singapore is controlled by dictatorship.
Hence, the evidence given was irrelevant to the argument. When talking about economic miracles, as in the Chilean miracle, academics are referring to states where there has been registered unprecedented growth.
The economic tigers of the were the dictatorships of South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. And those spectacular successes repeatedly sowed the minds of even committed democrats. The Celtic tiger miracle lasted from till and know Ireland, a democracy is now almost in a depression. But during the next 30 years the economies of Taiwan grew by leaps and bounds. By , economists noted that 18 million people of Taiwan exported more goods than million of Brazilians or 75 million Mexicans.
Growth rates are either very low or very high in dictatorships read:They are never stable. Only democratic countries that gives an average sustainable growth rate. This observed large variance in economic performance casts doubt on the effect of dictatorship on economic development. This put the significance of dictatorship to the economic miracles questionable.
The miracles that happened seems fail to serve the ends of the development, including the freedom of the citizens.
As quoted in many parts of this debate, Taiwan and South Korea, the Asian Tigers, demanded democracy to their country. One of the best ways to measure the impact of the government system a state implements, is comparing it vs similar states who took different choices.
Whether it is providing basic law and order, or ensuring sanctity of contract, or delivering public services, the stench of decline is hard to ignore. The thing is that creating markets is about setting a reasonable framework and letting go, but state capacity involves the creation of public institutions, and its respectives mechanisms for accountability, conflict management, etc, as a time will come when the private sector will no longer be able to compensate the lack of an efficient state when it comes to core state functions, for example.
From this derives that the odds are still favor the prospect that China, rather than India will sustain its current growth rate. Their situations were similar up until the Perestroika times, when they engaged on parallel but different initiatives to break from classical Communism. The Soviet Union engaged in political liberalization, with small changes occurring in the economic side.
China went on with large and increasing economic liberties, but established no political rights or liberties. We can show in this argument that, being developing nations, China did much better than India, by staying as a one party dictatorship, rather than establishing a multi-party democracy; and then that, as a centrally planned economy with a one-party dictatorship in crisis, China was better off than the now extinct Soviet Union, and its successor states by transitioning into a free market one party dictatorship, rather than transitioning into a planned economy democracy.
When the example goes to countries like Singapore and China, the role of dictatorship method is questionable, because those are categorized in grey area. We should see that the economy of China on its classical age had slow growth.
It is after Deng Xiao Ping took office, the economy of China is moving fast. EVEN IF we put ourselves in their shoes and follow their dictatorship model, their deduction is still unclear. We believe that dictatorship DOES NOT outperform democracy, because in fact, to ensure growth and development, the so-called dictator amputates its authoritative power and giving it to the market.
The root of the problem of the economy was not about whether it is dictatorship or not, but more on its economic view. Yes, india was politically democratic, but it was also economically Leninist. Only in s did India begin to reform its Leninist economy. China, however, began reforming its Leninist economy already in The standard contrast of china as evolutionary, democratic, and stagnant obscures what is clarified by understanding India as a political democracy with a largely Leninist economy.
This socialist economic policies that is adopted in Nehru-Gandhi era that virtually bankrupted India by New York Times, April 5, ]].
Given that inter-group inequality, and social instability require a centralization of decisions, and given that special crisis as natural disasters require rapid decision making and the diminishing of liberties, there are surely cases in which democracy is not viable. Under these conditions economical development is promoted by dictatorships i. The historic experience shows that richer, more educated and more equal countries are more likely to be democratic.
Countries which once reached a level of development and social maturity will then seek to be liberated from the restrictions imposed by the dictatorship using from passive resistance to insurrection against the system; transitioning from dictatorship to democracy, exemplified in cases such as Chile or Spain.
In short, among the poor nations, an authoritarian political system increases the rate of economic development, while a democratic political system appears to be a luxury which hinders development. Dictatorship is not a prerequisite for Democracy. We want to reveal the truth about Chile that was misused as an example by the proposition.
On the other hand, highly unequal societies are a breeding ground for revolution as the pressure comes for better redistribution. The more equal a society is the fewer incentives they will have to go through an uprising so then the ruling elite goes unchallenged, or, if they are challenged, they can make small redistribution gestures to appease people.
The dictator or governing clique is much better off maintaining their citizens equal and happier. Of course equality is not enough. He also has an incentive to keep them making money and generating riches the dictator can predate on.
In order to take into account the considerations above and to avoid undesirable for them social consequences, the most wise among dictators and particularly those whose power is based on long dynastic inheritance adopted a preemptive approach for softening and smoothening an affliction and dissatisfaction of people. Just like democracies they have introduced social benefits, even though much smaller ones in quantitative or financial expression.
There are certainly fundamental differences between social benefits under democracy and under dictatorship. Under dictatorship social benefits are not immanent to the structure of society and are rather exceptions formed according to an arbitrary judgment, prudence and free will of dictator.
On the other hand, as various statistical tables can show, the poorest countries in the world are dictatorships. All the famines have happened under autocratic rule [[Dreze and Sen, Hunger and Public Action, ]]. However, when the discussion centered around incentives, the opposition claimed that the dictator had strong incentives to stay in power, but since we explained how to stay in power a dictator must balance predation and repression, and yield enough results, and seek the best advisors available, since it is in its best interest to keep a functioning system.
On the point of political freedoms, we consider that these may account as desirable features in a society, but they are not part of the concept of development, and they have the potential to undermine sustainable development in terms of health, education, income and security through the improper incentives raised by the democratic decision making mechanisms and institutions. This is specially true when the lack of development reaches such a low level that people is incapable of administering any political liberties in a productive fashion.
Apart from this, both teams have agreed that it is economic and social development what leads to democratic demands from the citizens.
This is so because it is when people have their basic needs well more than solved that they may start valuing the increase of political freedoms over further increases in development. In this context, democracy advocates should understand that the swiftest path to development a prerequisite for a sustainable liberal democracy is a dictatorship.
Thus we have provided a system that is acceptable and useful to overcome difficulties, is willing and able achieve development, and is flexible and timely for doing so vs a system that can not properly function in a society not fully developed, and that hinders development, if judged on whether dictatorship has been proven to be the best path for development, the proposition team wins.
But we were further appalled upon reading the arguments the opposition team during their second speech, since not one the examples of dictatorships they provided out of their own free will and initiative that is, without the proposition first presenting that example met their own definition. When in argument no. On top of this, the opposition performed a highly inconsistent classification of regimes, taking the big happy family of one party Communist regimes: Cuba, China, North Korea and the USSR, and splitting it between different foster homes, China to a non-dictatorial home, Cuba and North Korea to a dictatorial one, and the USSR seems to be unaccounted for, what is supposed to be the big difference between these single party, originally Marxist-Leninist, communist countries with regimes kick started by revolutions?
They never explained that. Since the Proposition clearly put forth the most constructive definitions in the debate, and was able to uphold them throughout, and also had a consistent way to categorize the relevant examples for the debate, if judged on the quality of the definitions and on consistency, the proposition wins this debate.
There are two clear examples we provided, that the opposition failed to refute, and even conceded. Combining both examples we get that given the same ethnic, temporal, geographic, cultural, historical, linguistic, political, economic and religious background, dictatorship yields better results than democracy. First is Cuba, we first introduced this example in argument yes. We argued that being two neighboring states, comparable both in age and in population size, differentiated only in that China turned to a one party system, and India to a multi party democracy; China had a more promising future on the base that they had a better bureaucracy, better state institutions and state services than India, who only had a better private sector, but that strengthening its private sector would be easier for China than it would be for India to build a proper public sector.
As for the comparison with the Soviet Union, in which we established that for a given dictatorship in crisis it was better to liberalize the economy than to democratize, seeing as how China had a better growth rate than its neighbor, and also how its neighbor collapsed and dissolved, unable to; the opposition did not refute this.
Thus the proposition team clearly proved that dictatorships do have an advantage over democracies in securing and maintaining development, and if judged under this criteria the proposition should win. We from the opposition found that this debate is being misled by the ideas and examples given regarding how Dictatorship is said to be the BEST path to development. It is important for us to clearly understand what a dictatorship is. A Dictatorship is a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.
We feel that this debate is not heading to the appropriate direction, and we will not release all of our arguments until the proposition receives our position on their debate.
Respect from Indonesia. Differences among dictatorial regimes are rooted on different aspects of their performance. They can differ on the magnitude of the governing clique, the military or civil nature of the authority, economic liberties granted for citizens, legality of political associations, legal framework, etc. Gallen identifies and explains many of the different regimes that can be considered dictatorships, since they accumulate absolute power in a small group or in a single person.
These include military dictatorships, presidential dictatorships, and dynastic monarchies, among others. This narrow alternative for a definition would indeed lead to an unproductive and unfair debate, since only regimes led by a single person could be accounted as dictatorships, excluding historical examples of dictatorial regimes, such as the the U. If this was the case, we would have to consider the lack of formal constitutions in Israel, New Zealand and the United Kingdom to be somewhat undemocratic systems even when political power in these countries is subject to the popular will.
Again, what sets democracies and dictatorships apart from one another is whether political power is held by the people in general or by a small clique or even a single person. Another point we wish to make is one regarding the validity of our examples.
What we called dictatorship are o were in the past in fact dictatorships. We are delighted to be given the opportunity of reaffirming why they fit our definition and provide examples of instances where they have been called so not merely by us, but by reputed sources.
South Korea had a pro development dictatorship for almost twenty years only to be followed by another dictatorship that ended in a democratic election where the winning candidate was aligned with the previously ruling clique.
The solid economic fundamentals of South Korean Economy were settled under dictatorship. Chile was ruled by dictator Augusto Pinochet from till Also, the examples and evidences presented in our arguments perfectly fit the definition given. That because neither Democratic or Dictatorship government has a conclusive evidence of causing development, Democratic country should not apply sanctions against Dictatorship country.
We found that by doing this they are not defending the dictatorship meant in this debate but yet playing safe by defending successful democratic country and claiming it to be a dictatorship.
We are appalled when the proposition tries to associate single party system with Dictatorship sin no. What we see here is the proposition, having conceded that Dictatorship cannot be defended, started to hijack examples from the the opposition.
This happened when they were rooting for dictatorship and were against election to save cost and pushes for development — propositions argument but then suddenly annexed Singapore into their arguments with their single party system, which conducts Election!
This is a form of inconsistency that we wish to highlight from the proposition. We would now opt to silenced the proposition by bringing forth our arguments. Note: Although the proposition tries to attack our credibility by commenting the source of our example read wikipedia. Rather, we clearly defined dictatorship from the beginning and we have stuck with that definition. No strangers to sinning, the opposition has conceded as dictatorship various one-party systems North korea, Yugoslavia, Cuba and a defacto one party system Venezuela , but rejected countries that have it like China and Singapore, without really explaining the difference between both groups.
They claim we conceded dictatorships cannot can be defended yet we have defended dictatorships from all the spectrum, without any ideological or geographical bias. They claim that the example of Singapore is contradictory with our calling elections a luxury, because Singapore holds them. Which sometime dictatorships have to do. On the subject of our hijacking Singapore to the side of dictatorships we answer: 1. Elections are not the only condition for democracy as several of the countries that the opposition acknowledged as dictatorships have regular elections Cuba, Venezuela and Zimbawe.
A dictatorship action requires no constitutions. This leaves no room for accountability that puts the development of the country if any in a pendulum state. On the subject of checks and balance we question the following: 1.
They have not defined what it is. To each of these three branches there is a corresponding identifiable function of government, legislative, executive, or judicial. Each branch of the government must be confined to the exercise of its own function and not allowed to encroach upon the functions of the other branches. Furthermore, the persons who compose these three agencies of government must be kept separate and distinct, no individual being allowed to be at the same time a member of more than one branch.
So sound decisions can evidently be made without it. We contend that checks and balances get in they way of swift decisions that many times are good ones. If the separation of powers the same as check and balances is so good why is it removed in emergency situations martial law, state of emergency, state of siege?
The proposition does not explain how checks and balances work to get always good policies. We add, that the reason not to concentrate is so no group can subvert it. Lastly the other team never explained why the separation of powers reaps better policies than the technocrats a dictator can hire.
Dictator not necessarily are wise but we did say that he has freedom to implement necessary measures in a timely fashion and surround himself with the best advisers available despite popularity, partisan loyalty and political alliances.
But we have to ask: what would the problem of unaccountable yet development-causing decisions? Lastly we do not have to defend any kind of democratic values and on the other hand we have stated time and again that dictatorships are a very stable and stabilizing government. We have given the benefits of dictatorships from the very introduction of the debate. Dictatorship has no planned succession period. This is true in every dictatorship country applies to popular and un-popular dictators.
A perfect example for this case would be of Yugoslavia. A country that was lead by a communist dictator after the second world war, Josip Broz Tito, under his command Yugoslavia managed to rebuilt itself from the ashes of war only to find itself disintegrated, overwhelmed with civil war and ethnic cleansing after the death of their dictatorship leader.
That a personal rule is unlikely to be sustainable beyond one generation [[Ndulu, Benno J. The political economy of economic growth in Africa, ]].
This is the then same problem faced by dictatorship country such as Cuba, North Korea, Burma, and Libya. The opposition should have explained how development is conditioned by succession. The opposition is dead wrong about dictatorships not having successions. This system has been advocated by a lot of great philosophers like John Austin. According to him, the people deliberately surrender their rights to the king in return of peace and tranquility he maintains under his rule.
He makes laws without letting people have their say. He can take critical decisions as he deems fit without any delays and uprisings in the decision making process. In dictatorship the power belongs to the dictator whereas in democracy people are the ultimate rulers. In democracy, people have their rights recognized in the very Constitution of their state which are called fundamental rights that can never be suspended by the government.
In democracy, people are indulged in all decisions related to economic, social, political and military affairs whereas in dictatorship who are people to decide? They just sit back and follow.
Overall, democracy is regarded as the purest form of government. It is the most stable system under which both the ruled as well as the rulers are content. Next: Difference Between Patent and Design.
0コメント